Am I the only one who noticed that VMartin can't go three sentences without using the word 'Darwinists'?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

If morphology doesn't match molecular data, nothing need be done in order to reconcile the two.But convergence (homoplasy) in sequence data, when using basal metabolism genes such as 16S rRNA, being much less likely than convergence in morphological traits, molecular markers are clearly posited as the accurate tool for phylogenetic analysis.

The only issue that need to be solved is inaccurate identification. Placing a taxon in the phylogenetic tree is pointless if one cannot identify it in nature without a risk of mistake.

But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

What does that mean?Remember that I don't master English/American expressions.

'Throw a monkey wrench into something' = sabotage something, or add an element to a situation that creates a difficult problem.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

Well, it depends.Studying the evolution of coloration requires building phylogenies of closely related species (typically within a genus), as this trait seems highly variable.Phylogenies of gene sequences at the genus level usually aren't problematic, they might be if the studied taxa underwent a fast radiation. Otherwise, there is not reason to think that DNA markers should not be reliable.And regarding coloration, this trait should not be mischaracterized during field sampling.However, as in every study regarding the evolution of a highly variable trait, problems may come from incomplete sampling: forgetting species, either because some have not been identified yet, or because the are unavailable, or because several have been misclassified in the same species. The latter could indeed happen in poorly studied organisms such as fungi, were two species may look similar while being more closely related compared to others species showing different colors.But if you want a my personal opinion, I would say that incomplete sampling should not be so problematic. We don't need to know the complete and accurate history of the evolution of coloration, rather a global trend: is it a conserved or a highly variable trait at the genus level? Of course, it may depend on the genus, but a highly variable trait may indicate the action of divergent selection.

But in terms of figuring out the evolution of coloration, it kinda throws a monkey wrench in there doncha think?

Well, it depends.Studying the evolution of coloration requires building phylogenies of closely related species (typically within a genus), as this trait seems highly variable.Phylogenies of gene sequences at the genus level usually aren't problematic, they might be if the studied taxa underwent a fast radiation. Otherwise, there is not reason to think that DNA markers should not be reliable.And regarding coloration, this trait should not be mischaracterized during field sampling.However, as in every study regarding the evolution of a highly variable trait, problems may come from incomplete sampling: forgetting species, either because some have not been identified yet, or because the are unavailable, or because several have been misclassified in the same species. The latter could indeed happen in poorly studied organisms such as fungi, were two species may look similar while being more closely related compared to others species showing different colors.But if you want a my personal opinion, I would say that incomplete sampling should not be so problematic. We don't need to know the complete and accurate history of the evolution of coloration, rather a global trend: is it a conserved or a highly variable trait at the genus level? Of course, it may depend on the genus, but a highly variable trait may indicate the action of divergent selection.

My hypothesis is that we can't figure out much more till the dang scientists go do some more work on phylogenies.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days.

Another hypothesis about why nobody has done much research on the evolution of coloration and its relationship to toxicity in mushrooms might be that there is not a lot of funding for projects like that these days.

In the mean time we can do some fun speculation though.

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

Studying molecular background of coloration of mushrooms or of butterly wings do not help. Even if we know how and where coloration is coded (if it is possible)it will elucidate nothing. It will not solve problem if coloration is adaptive or not. It will not determine if coloration has cryptic/aposematic function. It will not explain the function of species coloration at all.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Studying molecular background of coloration of mushrooms or of butterly wings do not help. Even if we know how and where coloration is coded (if it is possible)it will elucidate nothing. It will not solve problem if coloration is adaptive or not. It will not determine if coloration has cryptic/aposematic function. It will not explain the function of species coloration at all.

It will not solve everything, but as I said, phylogenetic analysis could indicate the action of divergent selection. Of course, it implies that all species of, say, Boletus, share a common ancestor. I hope you don't deny that, Martin.In the end, if we know the genes coding for this trait, fitness experiment can be done (RNA interference, knock-out) to assess the role of coloration. But they certainly won't be necessary. Positive selection could be detected with sequence comparisons, although you may object that mutations may not be random. ???

Anyway, what do you propose, Martin, in order to test your hypothesis (whatever that is)?

BTW, such analysis is not needed in butterflies, their coloration is already explained.

You probably meant: "it must not elucidate anything".You wouldn't want such thing, as it would ruin your argument (from ignorance).Again, what is your hypothesis, Martin, and what do you propose in order to test it?

Boletus is a good example. The ruselas are a different story but not one that your comments are displaying evidence of comprehending. Do you have access to a library? Do you have a brick?

Do not make fool of yourselves. It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi and denigrate me if you like. I can only laugh at your ignorance. It is ridiculous how you want to obscure the problem by analysing pigments or DNA that underly the colors of mushrooms. You can continue discussing your artificial, substitutional issue of molecular background however long you like. I am sure you will never explain the meaning of the coloration in such way.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Okay, here's a new game: every time VMartin says 'Darwinist', 'Darwinian', or 'Darwinism', take a drink of beer.

Okay, let's start.

Quote

Do not make fool of yourselves.

Hmm. Is not answering questions how you keep yourself so dignified, V? Or is it sucking up to lunatics?

Quote

It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism.

*GULP*

Quote

You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian

*GULP*

Quote

example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi

Is that what you are, V? An expert on fungi?

Quote

and denigrate me if you like.

Thank you! I believe we shall!

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Darwinists are pretty angry. Because they cannot use "natural selection" in the case of coloration of mushrooms they started denigrate me having no other arguments. First they tried to obscure the problem by gibbering about mushroom's DNA. Now they only denigrate - as usually btw.

Another case is well-known butterfy Peacock - Inachis io. This butterfly has eye spots on the wings. Darwinistic explanation is again that Natural selection created them. Once they were only indistinct but those butterflies with better eyespots were selected (they scared by them predators you know) and by such way eyspots were refined. Nice story.

Everybody knows also Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta). They are colorfull without eyespots inhabiting in Europevast areas. Here the darwinian story about evolution of their coloration is totally different one.

are pretty nervous of the case of coloration of animals and started denigrate me having no arguments. First they tried to obscure the problem by gibbering about DNA. Now they only denigrate - as usually btw.

Another case is well-known butterfy Peacock - Inachis io. This butterfly has eye spots on the wings. Darwinistic

*chug*

Quote

explanation is that Natural selection created them. Once they were only indistinct but those butterflies with better eyespots were selected and by such way eyspots were refined. Nice story.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I've always found the antievolutionists to provide far more self-inflicted damage than I have time to comment upon. Why should I impersonate anyone, when that would just mean that I'm letting someone else go uncritiqued?

Do not make fool of yourselves. It was me who made claim that coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms are a problem for darwinism. You have never any idea that such an anti-darwinian example exists because it has never been mentioned in english language as far as I know.

Now you are angry that you cannot explain the coloration via natural selection. You can pretend to be an expert on fungi and denigrate me if you like. I can only laugh at your ignorance. It is ridiculous how you want to obscure the problem by analysing pigments or DNA that underly the colors of mushrooms. You can continue discussing your artificial, substitutional issue of molecular background however long you like. I am sure you will never explain the meaning of the coloration in such way.

This cat seems to have some strange brew baby. The topic of phylogenies being as yet undocumented for many fungi has next to nothing to do with your idea that they throw a monkey wrench into the science of evolution. I would hardly describe myself as an expert on fungi (although I do have a photo album full of polaroids of Labouls (Laboulbeniales) my mother shot using an electron microscope a looong time ago. That's a weird one for you. As a kid I had to care for some decrepit old hens, help collect their lice with a vacuum cleaner fitted with a sheer nylon legging and that doesn't even include our house fly cages. Having a scientist for a mother had ups and downs.) but the subject I was discussing was the difficulty dealing with a lack of data not your ravings. Was I off topic? I'm sorry if I was.

Arden, that's the kind of game that kills college students occasionally. Have you read any of the "debate between myself and AFDave at Richard Dawkins? I started by claiming a beer every time I won a point. I stopped that game in a hurry. As a matter of fact, it's 11:45 and I've already had too many. Can I take a credit?

--------------Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

1) You don't know to explain function of coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms.

2) You seem to be unable to explain why some related butterfly species inhabiting the same area and feeding on the same plants have totally different patterns and coloration of their wings. One species has aposematic eyspots to scare predators (?) the other one doesn't. But it thrive as well.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin